Nigerian journal of clinical practice · 2021
Diagnostic value of penile color doppler ultrasonography in patients with veno-occlusive erectile dysfunction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Soylu A, Sarier M, Kutlu R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The method used in the first assessment of patients with veno-occlusive erectile dysfunction (ED) is penile color doppler ultrasonography (PCDU). However, cavernosography performed following intracavernosal pharmacostimulation is accepted as a more precise method for showing venous leakage.
AIMS: The objectives of this study were to compare results obtained from patients undergoing PCDU, and those undergoing cavernosography, and to investigate the diagnostic value of PCDU in the diagnosis.
METHODS: A total of 133 patients who presented at the urology clinic due to ED have veno-occlusive dysfunction (VOD) detected as a result of PCDU and underwent cavernosography for further assessment when scheduled for penile embolization. The results obtained were retrospectively evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean age of 133 patients with VOD identified as a result of PCDU was 48.7 ± 11.2 years. In cavernosography performed after PCDU, venous leakage was detected in 127 patients (95.49%), while no leakage was found in six patients (4.51%). Bilateral venous leakage was found in 91.34% (n:116), right venous leakage in 5.51% (n:7), and left venous leakage in 3.15% (n:4) of the patients with venous leakage.
CONCLUSION: Evaluating the cavernosography results, PCDU alone is often sufficient to diagnose veno-occlusive ED. Cavernosography is a more invasive diagnostic method compared to PCDU that is adequate in cases where venous surgery or embolization is not considered, and cavernosography is not recommended in these patients.
AIMS: The objectives of this study were to compare results obtained from patients undergoing PCDU, and those undergoing cavernosography, and to investigate the diagnostic value of PCDU in the diagnosis.
METHODS: A total of 133 patients who presented at the urology clinic due to ED have veno-occlusive dysfunction (VOD) detected as a result of PCDU and underwent cavernosography for further assessment when scheduled for penile embolization. The results obtained were retrospectively evaluated.
RESULTS: The mean age of 133 patients with VOD identified as a result of PCDU was 48.7 ± 11.2 years. In cavernosography performed after PCDU, venous leakage was detected in 127 patients (95.49%), while no leakage was found in six patients (4.51%). Bilateral venous leakage was found in 91.34% (n:116), right venous leakage in 5.51% (n:7), and left venous leakage in 3.15% (n:4) of the patients with venous leakage.
CONCLUSION: Evaluating the cavernosography results, PCDU alone is often sufficient to diagnose veno-occlusive ED. Cavernosography is a more invasive diagnostic method compared to PCDU that is adequate in cases where venous surgery or embolization is not considered, and cavernosography is not recommended in these patients.